SummersTimes

Unemployment is up -- again. And Rep. Manzullo voted against extending benefits.

Scott Summers — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:37:45 GMT

The July, 2008 unemployment numbers are in.

Nationally, the rate is up to 5.7%.

Illinois is struggling. At a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.3%, we're in trouble throughout the state.

Here in the 16th Congressional district, it's especially bad.

The Rockford Metropolitan Statistical Area (Winnebago and Boone Counties) has the dubious distinction of leading the state with an unemployment rate of 8.5%.

Eight-point-five percent. That's nearly one in ten of us looking for work.

Helloooooooooooo, Representative Don Manzullo.

Ahem. Ahem. Mr. Manzullo? Are you there? Hello?

Perhaps he's not there. Or perhaps he's not listening.

Memo to Manzullo: WE LEAD THE STATE IN UNEMPLOYMENT.

So what's Mr. Manzullo doing about the worst unemployment rate in Illinois? Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

Come to think of it: Representative Manzullo is worse than nothing.

At the very time thousands of his constituents are hurting, and anxious to find work -- Manzullo voted AGAINST extending unemployment benefits. clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll412.xml (Fortunately, he was outvoted.)

Let's be clear about this. Unemployment payments are not welfare. They're a lifeline for when we lose our jobs through no fault of our own.

Mr. Manzullo, stop turning your back on your constituents. Help us.

We're decent, hard working people. We dearly want to take care of our families. Help us.

Step up job training programs. Partner state and private employment services with community colleges for jobs counseling and jobs training. Help us.

Get us set up in our own home-grown businesses, along the lines of the Scott Summers plan for "microcapitalism". Help us.

Help us, Representative Manzullo. Help us.

Stop trying to cut off unemployment benefits. Here in your Congressional district. Here in the Unemployment Capital of Illinois.

Help us, Mr. Manzullo.

Stop hurting us.

"I Love a Parade"

Scott Summers — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:01:43 GMT

I've spent a lot of time out on the parade circuit this year, campaigning all across the 16th Congressional District.

I've marched in a total of fourteen parades so far. Harvard. Davis. Genoa. Polo. Scales Mound. Davis Junction. Lanark. Belvidere. Kirkland. Mount Morris. Rockford. Rock City. German Valley. Pearl City.

Several more parades to come. Rochelle. Freeport. Shannon. Lena. Stillman Valley. Oregon. Galena.

Oh, and sustainable energy fairs in Elizabeth and Oregon. And the Boone County fair. And the Juneteenth celebration in Freeport. Probably a few more events as I can fit them in.

It's been a whole lot of fun. Weather's been uniformly great. Crowds have been friendly.

Of course, running as a candidate of the Green Party has elicited all sorts of sentiment. Everything from shouts of encouragement ("Go Green! YES!") to, well, indifference.

If I could characterize the most common reactions -- and it's difficult for me to do so, because I'm always on the move, walking and talking and running -- I'd have to say that many people are either puzzled or surprised to see me.

Yes. Three choices for Congress. A bit of democracy this year in the 16th.

All of the communities and voters who have hosted me (or will host me) have my profound thanks. I'm glad to have visited. And I hope that you will think of me when you vote on November 4th.

Action on HIV/AIDS

Scott Summers — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:23:02 GMT

I believe that when the history of the twenty-first century is described a century hence, the scourge of HIV/AIDS will be writ large. Poorly controlled -- or, worse, largely unchecked -- it will decimate populations. It will cause unspeakable human misery. It will ruin entire nations.

That's why I support concerted efforts -- worldwide efforts -- to contain it. The USA must lead the way with institutional, public health, and financial support.

Today, I've signed a "Pledge to Provide Leadership in Combating HIV/AIDS in the US and Abroad", solicited of candidates for U.S. Congress by the Global AIDS Alliance Fund and the AIDS Action Council.

The pledge provides, in part: "I pledge to work with colleagues in the US Congress to ensure that US Policy helps the world rapidly reach the goal of universal access to all HIV/AIDS services. ...I pledge to work with colleagues in the US Congress to support comprehensive, evidence-based HIV/AIDS prevention policies to reach all at-risk populations, as well as approaches to HIV/AIDS that fully meet the related health needs of women."

Unlike plagues of the past -- we know the causation. And we know how to curb the transmission.

Unless we act, I fear that the judgment of history will be harsh: "They knew. They knew. And yet, they didn't act quickly enough, or do enough."

More information on the Congressional pledge is at www.globalaidsalliancefund.org.

Pledge of Allegiance and Star Spangled Banner -- in English only?

Scott Summers — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:58:53 GMT

In recent days, I've received from residents of the 16th Congressional District sixteen emails asking me to support H.R. 6783. My response follows:

Thank you for writing to me about the Pledge Language is English Declaration and Government Endorsement Act of 2008.

I believe that H.R. 6783 is both insensitive and poorly conceived. For example, does it consider the needs and abilities and requirements of those who rely on American Sign Language (ASL)? Are we to deny federal funds to schools for the deaf merely because students communicate the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem through ASL rather than English?

One's tongue is not dispositive of one's patriotism. Apart from the indigenous peoples -- we are a nation of immigrants. Wave upon wave of us have come to America speaking languages other than English. And wave upon wave of us have become English speakers. We always have. And we always will.

When newly-arrived immigrants recite the Pledge or sing the Star Spangled Banner in their respective native tongues, they begin their process of assimilation as future U.S. citizens in a constructive way. Recitation in English quickly follows.

If people are forced to recite the Pledge or sing the National Anthem in a language they don't understand, then they cannot possibly comprehend the content. They're merely chanting. And if they don't understand the content of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner because of the cramdown of a mindless and mean spirited law -- then what's the point? Exactly what will we have accomplished? Nothing, say I.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Scott Summers
www.SummersForCongress.com
Candidate for U.S. Congress, 16th District, Illinois

Scott's excellent adventures at the Illinois State Board of Elections, Part 1

Scott Summers — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:57:24 GMT

The following letter is self-explanatory. I never received a response.

January 21, 2008

Mr. Daniel White, Executive Director, Illinois State Board of Elections
1020 South Spring Street
Springfield, IL 62708

Dear Mr. White:

I write to offer two constructive suggestions.

The first deals with the public's ability (or, more correctly, inability) to observe meetings of the Board. On December 21, I appeared in your offices in the Thompson Center as attorney for a candidate. The hearing space was so cramped that only the participants in the ten or so hearings that day were allowed into the meeting room on a “case-by-case” basis – that is to say, only the parties were allowed in (not the general public), and only when their respective cases were being heard.

I recognize that space at the Thompson Center is at a premium – but I also believe that some sort of accommodation must be made in order to assure the Board's compliance with provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1). Perhaps you will consider remote television monitors (or something similar) if this circumstance arises again. Over the longer term – perhaps you will consider Internet broadcasting of all ISBE meetings through the use of webcams.

My second concern deals with ballot applications derived from your suggested form SBE No. A-14. In the McHenry County variation (copy attached), you will note that prospective voters may check “Democratic”, “Republican”, “Nonpartisan”, or fill in a blank. Therein exists a bias, albeit a subtle one: Green Party and Moderate Party voters in McHenry County must write out the name of their party; Republicans and Democrats do not. Perhaps some voters who might otherwise be inclined to take Moderate or Green ballots will not do so merely because the application form does not make them aware of the possibility.

May I respectfully suggest that Illinois election authorities using pre-printed application forms must do one of two things: either print the names of all established parties (of which there presently are four in McHenry County), or require all voters to write out their party of choice. To preprint some party names and not others is bias – unintended as that bias may be.

Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions.

Very truly yours,

Scott K. Summers

"I read the news today, oh boy": over half a trillion dollar deficit

Scott Summers — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:05:36 GMT

"The White House's budget office on Monday estimated that next year's budget deficit will hit a record $482 billion - and that doesn't even account for some $80 billion in war costs."
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/28/ap5261851.html

In the 1960s, my Uncle Dave sputtered and fumed to me that Lyndon Johnson was going to ruin the country. "Seven billion dollar deficit!" he hissed. "Can you imagine that! I can't believe how irresponsible the Democrats are!"

In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter clocked in with a deficit in the seventy billions. "Outrageous!" roared the resolutely Republican uncle.

And now Bush -- by his own account, and for next year alone -- is gonna leave us with a little doggie-doo pile of five hundred and sixty-two billion in new debt for all of us to clean up.

When Reagan took office, the national debt was around one trillion.

As Dubya leaves, the debt pushes ten trillion.

What would Uncle Dave have said to THAT?

You know, the last Republican president to have a balanced budget was Dwight Eisenhower. Nearly fifty friggin' years ago.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes couldn't do it. Or couldn't be bothered. Or didn't care. Or all of the above.

My Republican opponent for Congress in the 16th district of Illinois is forever crowing about how fiscally conservative he is.

Oh, sure he is -- at the margins. Myopic and silly and counterproductive and downright mean as his suggested cuts often are.

But on a macro basis -- the incumbent Congressman is as reckless as they come.

If my Republican opponent were a true fiscal conservative, he'd vote AGAINST war appropriations unless there was tax revenue to back them up.

But no. He blithely votes for war -- pre-emptive war waged under phony pretenses, mind you -- and then shuns responsibility for paying for it. And he compounds his arrogance by simultaneously shilling for tax cuts for the wealthy.

One of my sons sums it up wonderfully well: "What's worse than tax-and-spend Democrats? The borrow-and-spend Republicans!"

Friends, the past fifty years of wretched fiscal excess and depravity and irresponsibility -- exhibited by Republicans and Democrats alike -- have brought our nation to its knees.

They're exporting our jobs. They're trashing our dollar. They're ruining our way of life.

That's why I'm running as a Green. I stand for fiscal responsibility. I stand for job creation and economic development through a bottoms-up approach I call "microcapitalism". And I stand for -- gasp! -- a balanced budget.

The money medicine will be bitter, friends. We face hard work and sacrifice in order to bootstrap ourselves back into good jobs, and to right the financial wrongs that have been left to us.

Uncle Dave was right about the budget-busting Democrats of yore. And my son is right about the borrow-and-spend Republicans of today.

A $562 billion dollar annual deficit. That's roughly eight times Carter. That's roughly eighty times Johnson.

And we're all supposed to think that the tooth fairy will pick up the tab.

It's time -- way past time, in fact -- for "we the people" to put our financial house in order. I am, friends, at your disposal for the hard work ahead.

"Thinkin' of Lincoln", Part 1: Windows

Scott Summers — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:18:25 GMT

Officials in McHenry County are organizing a local observance of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. Over the course of the rest of this year and on into 2009, I'll be contributing a column entitled "Thinkin' of Lincoln" to the McHenry website, www.alincoln200.com. Here's the first installment:

Thinkin' of Lincoln
Insights on Illinois' favorite son

by Scott Summers

Here in McHenry County, Illinois, we'll be celebrating the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth during all of 2009. I'll be writing a series of columns on our sixteenth president.

In my offerings, I intend to veer from traditional biographical and historical information about Lincoln. Instead, watch for background and nuance and subtlety about the man from Springfield.

Some of it will be whimsical. Some of it will be wistful. Some of it will be enigmatic and puzzling. Some of it will be absorbing and entertaining.

Much of it, I think, will be new and illuminating for many readers. A bit of it, I fancy, will be inspiring. All of it, I hope, will be educational and enlightening.

I welcome your suggestions -- and your help. Please email your ideas for future topics to me. And if a few of you are so inclined -- I'll gladly turn this space over to occasional guest authors.

Let's start "Thinkin'".

As it so happens -- Lincoln is out campaigning. Right now, here in the summer of 2008. And on into the autumn. All across Illinois.

Yes, it's the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Re-enactors will be tracing the travels of The Railsplitter and The Little Giant and performing at each of the seven debate sites.

The events nearest to McHenry County will be in Ottawa between August 22 and 23; Freeport between August 29 and September 1; and Galesburg between October 3 and 5. Information about the programs statewide is at http://www.enjoyillinois.com/LDR/index.html.

Of the seven debate sites, only one remains in the original -- the Old Main building at Knox College in Galesburg. Here's a bit of whimsy: at Old Main, the platform erected especially for the debate ended up blocking a building doorway. The debaters and the platform party were obliged to climb out of a first floor window in order to reach it.

Lincoln, of course, had barely a year of formal schooling. As he climbed through the window and onto the platform, he quipped: "Now I can say that I have successfully passed through college."

Remarkably, there are two other stories about Lincoln going through windows.

"(L)egend surrounds Lincoln's jump from a window. Lincoln did jump from a window of Springfield's Second Presbyterian Church, the temporary location of the House of Representatives, in December 1840. The motive of the rash action, for which Lincoln suffered considerable humiliation, was to break a quorum when Democrats called for a vote to cripple the Whig-favored state bank.

"No evidence besides oral tradition (claiming at least one notable Vandalian as an eyewitness to the leap) places a similar Lincoln jump at Vandalia. In the Vandalia legend, Lincoln jumped from a statehouse window in order to break a quorum when a vote was called to keep the capital at Vandalia."
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihsp0012.html

And so, readers -- my hope is that throughout 2009, you will find this little column to be a window on Lincoln's life. And I hope that you will enjoy your gazes through it.

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license:
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic

"Make No Little Plans": let's build turboprops in Rockford!

Scott Summers — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:02:21 GMT

Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood... Make big plans; aim high in hope and work. Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect 1864-1912

Seattle has Boeing. Wichita has Cessna.

Why can't we have aircraft manufacturing in Rockford?

We have all of the ingredients.

Chicago Rockford International Airport is underused.

Companies like Acument (aircraft fasteners), Ingenium (aircraft systems testing), Woodward Governor, and Hamilton Sunstrand (which has done significant work on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner) all are here.

The Global Tradepark TIF district and the Rivers Edge Redevelopment Zone -- programs to encourage development near the airport -- are in place.

All sorts of manufacturing capacity is nearby. For example, the massive Motorola facility in Harvard -- completely unused for five years -- is about 35 miles from the airport.

Put it all together with the stark new reality of staggeringly high fuel costs, and what do you get?

I see a need for new niche aircraft for both passenger and cargo service. Aircraft that sacrifice speed for sharply improved fuel economy.

Call it retro if you must -- but I see turboprops in our future.

Yes. Propeller planes about the size of a 737. Short and intermediate range flights. Capacity of about 150 - 200 passengers.

Are aircraft of this type being built anywhere in the world? Perhaps I'm mistaken -- but I don't think so.

Why not here, in the 16th Congressional district?

Consider the example of Embraer, the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer. They developed a niche market for fifty-seat regional jets. No other company in the world makes commercial craft quite like them. And the firm is swamped with orders.

To be certain, an aircraft manufacturing startup in Rockford will take an enormous amount of planning. And money.

And perhaps it won't be turboprops. Perhaps it'll be a new generation of low-speed jets that optimize fuel efficiency.

Can we get these aircraft to run on biofuel that is not derived from food crops? Plan for that, too!

Perhaps none of this will come to pass.

But unlike my opponents -- who seem to work only at the margins -- I "aim high in hope and work".

Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer in community based economics. My "microcapitalism" plan for growing home and local-based businesses sets me apart from my two opponents for Congress.

But as you can see -- I also think macro.

"Make no little plans", friends.

Build turboprops in Rockford?

Why not?

Regarding Gore's "100% renewable electricity in ten years" proposal

Scott Summers — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:15:37 GMT

This morning, I received an email which reads in part:

Dear Mr. Summers:
I think I know the answer you will provide is "yes" but I'll ask anyway. Will you commit to support a program that achieves the goal that Vice President Gore set out: "...to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years" (Al Gore, July 17, 2008)? ...So, now the question is what should the plan for achieving the Gore plan be? Do you have thoughts on this that you can share with me?

My slightly edited reply follows:

Dear Sir:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful email.

Of course I support the Gore position: one hundred percent carbon-free electricity in ten years.

How shall we achieve it?

We'll begin by imposing a steep carbon tax (including both petroleum and coal) and depositing the proceeds into a special trust fund for application to "energy retooling" projects.

For implementation, we'll start (of course) with our public buildings. Solar/wind/geothermal. Insulation. Energy-efficient doors and windows. And as we can, we'll step down the colossal electrical grids and move to generation on a municipal basis.

But I also propose public policy initiatives that you'd not expect from most candidates for Congress.

We'll set up a Roosevelt-style "Civilian Conservation Corps" dedicated to retrofitting homes and businesses across the nation for energy efficiency. And we'll put our youth and unemployed to work. The funding? Fifty-fifty private-public matches, with the public match coming from the new carbon tax trust fund.

Public lighting of all kinds can go hybrid. For safety reasons, traffic lights probably will always have to be on grid. But why can't we have traffic lights and street lights each equipped with tiny windmills and battery packs as their principal energy sources, with grid backup?

How about sewage treatment facilities that use windmills to help aerate wastewater? You get the idea.

We must completely revamp and strengthen building codes. The Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) municipal code models and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program come to mind. Groups such as the American Institute of Architects will be instrumental.

Public works and smart building and design standards will help point the way. But make no mistake: energy responsibility is, at its core, personal responsibility. None of this will work very well in the absence of what I'm calling "Individual Initiative".

Specifically -- we all need to go on an "Energy Diet". Americans per capita use more energy than any other people in the world. Turn off the air conditioning and turn on a fan in the summer. Put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat in winter. (Ironically, this is precisely what Jimmy Carter suggested thirty years ago. He was, of course, correct!)

I'd like to take as much energy production as possible off grid, and see people take the initiative with developing what I'll call "backyard energy" consistent with their living situations. (This will not work for everyone, e.g., apartment dwellers.)

Education is critical. Introduce schoolchildren -- and hence their families -- to backyard energy concepts AT THE OUTSET with simple demonstrations and experiments that tie to science homework. A flashlight bulb that runs off of a tiny solar panel. An FM radio that runs off of a tabletop windmill or a handturned crank. Homegrown demonstrations will help acclimate people to the idea that "backyard energy" is plausible.

(Contrast what I've just sketched out to the positions of my opponents. The Republican incumbent wants to drill aggressively for oil. And the Democrat wants to build one hundred new nuclear power plants.)

In short -- we've all "gotta wanna" get to carbon-free electricity in ten years. And me, well -- I wanna.

I hope you'll excuse a bit of personal swagger, but -- I'm especially well suited to be a Congressman who truly will be a servant-leader. I really am a candidate who stands apart. I am free to articulate bold public policy. Politically, I am beholden to no one.

I hope that this quick on-the-fly email is sufficiently responsive. And I hope that you will spread the word about my candidacy. As you surely can discern -- I'm in a decidedly uphill race.

Thanks again for contacting me.

Scott Summers

What can we do about high unemployment in the 16th Congressional District?

Scott Summers — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:02:51 GMT

The numbers are in for April 2008 -- and they aren't pretty.

Unemployment is up -- up sharply -- in all of the counties that comprise, in whole or part, our Congressional District.

At 8.1%, Boone has the second worst rate in the state. Ogle and Winnebago are ninth and tenth worst, at 7%.

Statewide? 5.4%. Nationally? 5.0%.

We're falling behind, friends. And my opponents simply don't have any good ideas about what to do -- except maybe throw more of our tax dollars around, and try a few things at the margins.

The traditional top-down "solutions" -- grants and tax breaks and other incentives for companies large and small -- simply aren't working. Our good jobs just keep melting away.

I say: let's change the fundamentals.

Instead of trying to boost the economy from the top-down -- let's do it from the bottom-up.

Let's empower our families and neighbors and friends.

Let's raise up a whole new generation of capitalists. A whole new breed of capitalists.

I call them "microcapitalists".

It was the hard-working, bootstrapping, decent folks of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who, one at a time, put their hearts and their hands and their backs and their sweat into the nation's hard work, and made America an economic powerhouse.

We can do it again.

I propose a program of microloans and microgrants for home-based and community-based businesses.

Let's jump-start this with jobs and management training through our high schools and community colleges.

Add a volunteer corps of accountants and lawyers and bankers and retired executives to serve as coaches.

Offer reduced rents in "business incubators" -- shared office or shop floor space, with pooled administrative staff and office equipment.

The microcapitalist program will be rigorous. And it will not be for everybody: not all of us are cut out to be business owners and managers.

But it's a bright new way of reinvigorating our communities, and creating new jobs.

The coaching teams will help develop business plans as a requirement for receiving microloan and microgrant consideration. And the coaches will guide the microcapitalists, and help them succeed.

These businesses can be anything that demonstrably serves a community need: a bed and breakfast, a beauty salon, a bakery, or a bicycle business. A software startup. Community agriculture. Specialty manufactured items that fill niches, shipped to the nation and even the world.

Let's create work. Let's create businesses and jobs. Let's give one another the dignity of work.

And let's do it together, at the grass roots -- in our neighborhoods and in our communities and on our farms.

Do you know what else?

Home-grown jobs, and home-grown businesses, are ours to keep. They won't be outsourced.

Friends, this is how I will perform as your Congressman.

I offer hearts-and-hands solutions.

Here is my heart. Give me your hand.

Most truly yours,

Scott

Are big banks redlining community college students?

Scott Summers — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:37:49 GMT

Remember "redlining"?

Financial institutions used to discriminate against the poor and people of color by simply refusing to offer mortgages and insurance in certain neighborhoods, irrespective of a client's creditworthiness and ability to pay. It was an unethical and abusive and predatory practice that has since been curbed through legislation such as the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

In an article entitled "Student Loans Start to Bypass 2-Year Colleges", today's New York Times reports: "Some of the nation’s biggest banks have closed their doors to students at community colleges, for-profit universities and other less competitive institutions, even as they continue to extend federally backed loans to students at the nation’s top universities." www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/business/02loans.html?ref=todayspaper

What makes this new redlining all the more disgusting is that student loans generally are very difficult to discharge in bankruptcy. In other words -- lenders ALREADY have minimal risk of defaults on student loans! They don't HAVE to resort to "student redlining"!

Attention bankers: okay, credit is tight just now. Ration if you must. Exit the student loan market if you prefer. But do not DARE cherry pick students! Do not DARE "redline" community college students!

USA shuns treaty outlawing cluster bombs

Scott Summers — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:38:05 GMT

It would be far too glib and simplistic to say that cluster bombs are heinous implements of war.

They're not ordinary weapons. Broadcast from the air as if they were seed, they cause unspeakable carnage and terror among civilian populations.

"Duds" -- or, more aptly, "dud-ettes" -- can lie dormant in much the same fashion as land mines. Long after a conflict has ended, they kill and maim innocents.

Yesterday, in Dublin, one hundred and eleven nations signed a treaty banning cluster bombs. Principal manufacturers of the munitions -- Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States -- declined to sign.

The State Department trotted out a low-level spokesman, Tom Casey, who blithely dissembled that cluster bombs are"absolutely critical and essential" to our military. Uh-huh.

Today, the Associated Press quotes one John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org: "Treaties like this make me want to barf. It's so irrelevant. Completely feel-good."

(Shall we call this despicable bit of drivel "Pike's Pique"?)

Why? Why would the US refuse to sign? Because the Pentagon crowd thinks the expedient way to wage and win wars is through extermination? Because a ban would cut into our immensely profitable weapons-export business?

Friends, we need to join the rest of the world and curb armaments. And for that matter -- we need to stop exporting weapons. I solemnly pledge myself to these tasks.

Presidential election trivia

Scott Summers — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:49:17 GMT

Just for fun.............

Did you know that three names -- Nixon, Dole, and Bush -- have been at the top of the Republican Party ticket in thirteen of the last fourteen presidential elections?

1952: Nixon, vice president
1956: Nixon, vice president
1960: Nixon, president
1964: The exception -- Barry Goldwater and William Miller
1968: Nixon, president
1972: Nixon, president
1976: Bob Dole, vice president
1980: George H.W. Bush, vice president
1984: George H.W. Bush, vice president
1988: George H.W. Bush, president
1992: George H.W. Bush, president
1996: Bob Dole, president
2000: George W. Bush, president
2004: George W. Bush, president

Not that I particularly care who the Republicans field for 2008, but -- looks like the string may be ending. (Fresh faces! What a concept!)

Gas tax pandering

Scott Summers — Sat, 24 May 2008 14:31:47 GMT

Looks like my Congressional opponents, Don Manzullo and Bob Abboud, think they have found heretofore undiscovered crumbs at the bottom of the cookie jar.

Abboud and Manzullo and others -- John McCain and Hillary Clinton for two -- want a "summertime gas holiday". Drop the 18.4 cent federal gas tax between now and Labor Day.

On May 5th, the Rockford Register-Star's Chuck Sweeny reported: "...I wrote in Sunday’s column that Abboud was against the tax holiday. I learned Monday that he actually is for the temporary repeal, even though he doesn’t think it will do any good in the long term. I stand corrected and puzzled. U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Egan, is for the tax holiday, too. Like Abboud, Don says it’s a short-term thing."

Shall we revisit Economics 101?

A few bucks "saved" in gas taxes at the margin will only increase the demand at the margin. Net effect on gasoline prices: insignificant, if not zero. (Actually, the overall effect is worse than zero, because the available dollars to fix roads will be at a standstill for three months.)

And, like, PUH-LEEZE! We already have deficits out the wazoo, and we keep cutting taxes?????

Count on THIS candidate for Congress to tell it like it is.

Do we want decent roads on which to drive? Guess what: gas taxes need to go up. Do we desperately need a capital program here in Illinois, in order to capture and leverage already-pledged federal dollars for roads and bridges and other infrastructure? You betcha. Gas (and not sales) taxes need to go up.

Do we want to have interstate highway bridges that don't suddenly collapse into rivers? Our fairy godmothers aren't going to pick up the tab.

Do we need to refurbish mass transit in order to accommodate all the people who already want to get off the roads (at least some) in response high gasoline prices? Yeah, and gas taxes are the best way to do that. Do we need an accelerated program to tool up for alternative fuels for our cars? Yessir. Do we need to bring passenger rail service levels up? Absolutely.

Gas tax, folks. MORE gas tax. In fact -- we need to bring gas taxes up to world levels.

I was in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, where gasoline was well over five bucks a gallon. (And probably approaching six bucks by now.) The Canadians with whom my wife and I spoke were grousing about it, of course. Is there pain? Anger? Dislocation? Discomfort? Yes -- worldwide. It's not just us.

Don't get me wrong: the monster spike in petroleum prices affects us all. And the oil giants should be levied a monster tax on their windfall profits.

But cutting petroleum taxes as an election year gimmick only delays -- and magnifies -- our collective dislocation and hardship down the road (pun intended).

Folks, we need to swallow bitter medicine. Increase gas taxes. If saying that costs me votes, well........I don't particularly care.

Oh, and permit me to introduce one of my campaign refrains for the coming months. Personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility, friends. Cut back on car use, as you are able. You know the drill. Bundle your errands, carpool, walk, ride a bike, take a bus or train.

And do you know what? In our capitalist economy (and surprise!, I personally embrace capitalism as the "least worst" economic system), that's the best way back at the oily petroleum companies: simply don't buy as much of their product.

About common sense -- and good examples

Scott Summers — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:42:11 GMT

There was a news story late last week about the lease of vehicles by Congressional offices.

Seems like Congressman Manzullo's staff uses an SUV.

WBBM Radio and the Northwest Herald carried the story. See these links: www.wbbm780.com/pages/2193182.php nwherald.com/articles/2008/05/18/news/local/doc4830593917c7d071219578.txt

Here's a response I emailed this afternoon to Northwest Herald reporter Kevin Craver:

Mr. Craver:

Thank you for your article this past Saturday on Congressional vehicle leases.

I am on the November ballot as the Green Party candidate for Congress in the 16th District. (I will be in a three way race with Messrs. Manzullo and Abboud.)

Common sense -- and good examples -- make a world of difference.

I don't think anyone (including me) has an objection per se to reasonable car usage by Representatives and their staffs. But I do have some observations in connection with this story.

First, elected officials -- including Manzullo -- should lead by example. For travel throughout the district, a hybrid car would be a more appropriate choice than a Mountaineer. (And for strictly local trips in greater Rockford, an all-electric car would set a wonderful example.)

Second, Congressman Manzullo says in a recent press release that he supports "...legislation that would increase or remove the cap limitations on the tax credit of up to $3,000 for consumers who purchase alternative powered motor vehicles." As a matter of consistency, then, it just makes sense that he and his staff should be using a hybrid vehicle rather than an SUV.

And third, it would set another good example to use the Rockford buses, if only on occasion. (When I travel to McHenry County College board meetings, I try to use Pace and Metra as frequently as I can -- usually an average of one in three meetings.)

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott Summers

Congressional candidate Robert Abboud: all nuclear, all the time

Scott Summers — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:34:39 GMT

On May 3rd, the Rockford Register-Star's Chuck Sweeny ran an article on my Congressional opponents, Don Manzullo and Robert Abboud, and their respective takes on energy policy. www.rrstar.com/news/columnists/x883032543

(Memo to self: tell Sweeny that Summers is running, too.)

Wow. Abboud wants one hundred new nuclear power plants. Public-private partnership.

Well, I guess we all should have expected something like this from Abboud.

Don't get me wrong: Abboud strikes me as a highly intelligent man. He's a nuclear engineer. And of course he's going to be a proponent of new nukes. And as part of our three-way discourse in the 16^th district this year, he has every right to put it out there for voters to consider.

But excuuuuuuuse me: one-friggin'-hundred? This is as preposterous as it is grandiose as it is ridiculous as it is irresponsible as it is reprehensible.

It will come as no particular surprise to my readers that I am adamantly opposed to the expansion of nuclear power.

Permit me to summarize the ways. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit it to the first one hundred and four.

Reasons 1 – 100. Memo to Abboud: What? What? You want to build one hundred new T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T T-A-R-G-E-T-S ????

Reason 101. It's over sixty-five years since Enrico Fermi's team split the atom at the University of Chicago. And we STILL haven't figured out how to store (much less dispose of, much less effectively reprocess) thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste.

Sorry, Bob: as a condition of even PROPOSING more nukes, it's up to proponents like you to have a plan for dealing with the (polite word) stuff. (Oh, and by the way: make the investors, and the stockholders of the utility companies, and their ratepayers – not the taxpayers – pay for it.)

Reason 102. No more subsidies to the nuclear industry for (a) research (b) construction and (c ) disposal. (See investor/stockholder responsibility. Geez, whatever happened to capitalism in this country?)

Reason 103. No more federal insurance caps on nukes: make the nuclear industry pay for its own insurance, at market rates -- if they can get it, that is.

Did you know that the federal Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act caps government insurance for each site at $300 million, plus operator contributions per reactor of $95.8 million? So in the event of an accident -- Three Mile Island, anyone? -- there's less than $400 million to go around. For an incident of such enormity, that's chump change, folks. That's less than two days of war in Iraq. And taxpayers – not operators -- are on the hook for over three-quarters of that pittance!

Reason 104. State insurance regulators should compel insurers to remove nuclear exclusions from policies – or at least offer an optional endorsement at a ridiculously high extra premium. (And did you know that, homeowners? If your home gets irradiated from a nuclear accident at oh, say, Byron, you probably have no coverage, because your insurer pointedly excludes nuclear accidents?)

And not only that: if you personally are lucky enough not to be too terribly irradiated, and can move a thousand miles away for the rest of your life, why, please, just keep paying your mortgage on your uninhabitable home. (Do you really think your lender is going to give you a break?)

Let's talk the obvious. Absent huge public subsidies, and absent a requirement that the nuclear industry (and not the public at large) come up with ways of storing the s**t, and absent the almost complete lack of financial liability in the event of an accident, nuclear energy simply would not be able to compete in the energy marketplace. (See “Whatever Happened to Capitalism, Continued”.)

For cryin' out loud, Mr. Abboud, time to STOP building more reactors! And if only we would let market forces rule -- there wouldn't BE any more reactors!

I'll speak on energy solutions in other posts.

Smart Energy and Dumb Energy

Scott Summers — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:41:57 GMT

It's time to change the entire energy discourse -- by changing the handles.

Up until now, solar, wind, geothermal and their cohorts have passed as “sustainable” or “renewable” energy. Fossil and nuclear have been “conventional”.

Try this out instead: Wind/solar/geothermal are smart energy. Fossil and nuclear are dumb energy.

If we want to sustain the world economy in the years to come, we must do it in ways that are ecologically astute.

(Watch for my “eco-eco” treatise: ecology and economy are really bound up as one.)

We all know intuitively that solar, wind and geothermal will have the fewest adverse effects on our ecology. It's not a matter of if - it's a matter of when.

Fossil fuels aren't going to go away. But their supplies are finite, and the earth's capacity to absorb their effects is probably at its outer limits.

Nuclear? Look, we all know the waste is fiendishly toxic. And without (a) massive subsidies and (b) caps on liability, the economics are not viable. The most polite verdict I can render is that nuclear energy is a spectacularly failed experiment. It's time to move on.

So whatcha gonna go with? Smart energy? Or dumb energy?

Congressman Manzullo's implied energy policy: "Bleed America Dry First"

Scott Summers — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:02:11 GMT

From a recent Manzullo press release: “We also need to pursue more domestic production of oil and gasoline. The oil is there; we just have to want to get it... Using environmentally sound practices, we can produce an estimated 1.5 million barrels of oil a day on a tiny portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge...”

Hoo-boy. Manzullo just doesn't get it.

Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is extraordinarily counterproductive and short-sighted. But for now, I'll spare you the global warming arguments, and the economic arguments, and the environmental arguments, and all the silly “pity the caribou” caricatures.

Saving the very last of our domestic oil now has become a national security issue.

That's right: according to the Federal Department of Energy, the USA has less than 2% of remaining proven world oil reserves. Two lousy percent. (Derived from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html)

Essentially, Manzullo wants to pump it all out as fast as we possibly can. Never mind the future.

What will we -- and our children, and our grandchildren -- do in a couple of short decades if we have a war or a national emergency and have next to no domestic oil left?

Manzullo's petroleum policy amounts to “Bleed America Dry First.”

Poverty in the 16th Congressional District

Scott Summers — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:11:07 GMT

The Heartland Alliance's Mid-America Institute on Poverty has just released its “2008 Report on Illinois Poverty”. It's highly sobering – for the midwest, for Illinois, and for the 16th Congressional District.

Here are just a few of the key findings:

Between 2001 and 2007, real weekly wages (adjusted for inflation) fell in seven of eleven job sectors.
In 70 of 102 Illinois counties, median income declined by $1547 between 2001 and 2005.
Seniors, children, and the disabled account for almost half of those living in extreme poverty.
In 2006, 12.3% of Illinoisans lived in poverty – up from 10.7% in 1999.

Five area counties are on the group's “Poverty Watch List”: Boone, DeKalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago.

Page 52 of the report breaks out statistics by Congressional District. Consider these numbers for the 16th:

Poverty rate, 2006: 10.2%
Number of people in extreme poverty, 2006: 31,041 (a 6.5% rate)
Children in poverty, 2006: 24,074 (a 13.2% rate)
Total in poverty, 2006: 72,563 (That's approximately the populations of Belvidere, Freeport, and Loves Park combined!)

Heartland's report identifies six “Pathways Out of Poverty”: education, employment, health, housing, nutrition, and assets.

We will not succeed in our corner of the state – nor in Illinois, nor in America – unless every single citizen has a chance to succeed. The curse of poverty on some is a curse upon us all.

Alleviation of poverty is one of my top issues. In coming posts, I will speak on each of Heartland's six pathways.

View the report in full through this link: http://www.heartlandalliance.org/maip

Gun -- and ammunition -- control

Scott Summers — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:04:20 GMT

Let's Get Serious About Guns

News Item: “Politicians Talk Gun Control”, Friday, February 15, 2008:
www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=18595

(Illinois Congressman Donald) Manzullo: “You know, we don't have enough information, we don't know if something happened improperly in obtaining the firearms, and I think it's speculative that stricter firearms laws could have prevented something like (the Northern Illinois University shootings).”

Scott Summers says: Rockford suffered twenty homicides in 2007. A Rockford attorney was shot in the back two weeks ago. And now, the NIU tragedy.

Gratuitous, senseless gun violence isn't “speculative”, Mr. Manzullo. It's fact.

Common-sense restrictions are desperately overdue. You could begin, Mr. Manzullo, by introducing federal legislation to:

Ban assault weapons and sniper rifles.
End internet and mail order sales of guns and accessories.
Limit gun purchases to one a month.
Restrict bulk handgun sales.
Require drug testing as a condition of FOID (firearm owner ID card) issuance
Ban large capacity ammunition magazines.

But we all know, Mr. Manzullo, that you'll do nothing of the sort. After all, you do have an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, don't you?

As the Illinois Green Party candidate for Congress for Rockford and far northwestern Illinois, I -- Scott Summers -- will eagerly strive to earn an “F” from the NRA.

I'll introduce or co-sponsor legislation to do all of these things – and more.

I support very strict gun control measures.

Unfortunately, there are far too many guns in circulation to control them very well.

Accordingly, I intend to augment gun control initiatives with ammunition control.

Did you know that a .22 caliber bullet costs about a nickel? Larger caliber bullets range from about a dime to fifteen cents each.

A bullet should cost at least as much as a cigarette.

I propose an excise tax on ammunition, with proceeds to be deposited in a trust fund for the sole benefit of innocent victims of gun violence.

Similarly, gun owners should have to provide proof of personal liability insurance as a condition of Firearms Owner's Identification card (FOID) issuance. (Automobile owners must carry insurance. So should gun owners.)

The social costs of guns should be borne by gun users -- not the victims of violence, and not the general public (in the form of untoward law enforcement expenses and in the form of Medicaid support for people rendered destitute by gun violence). Gun owners should pick up the indirect and unintended financial consequences associated with their privilege. Yes – privilege.

Let me be clear. Although I personally would prefer that there be no guns at all, I'll not -- not -- interfere with careful and conscientious hunters and sportsmen and collectors.

I believe that most people are profoundly weary of the consequences of gratuitous gun violence. They yearn for common sense measures.

As Congressman, I will stand up for gun and ammunition control. And I'll be strident – and fearless – about it.

_________________________________________________________________

Other politicans speak on gun control – and Summers responds

Chicago Sun-Times, February 16, 2008: Senator talks guns in wake of NIU
www.suntimes.com/news/nation/797907,CST-NWS-bamside16.article

MILWAUKEE -- Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do ''whatever it takes'' to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Summers says: sorry, Senator, you're trying to have it both ways.

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/02/daley-says-niu.html
(Chicago mayor Richard M.) Daley said he believes America "is getting immune" to the issue of gun violence.
"It doesn’t disturb us anymore. I think there’s something wrong with our conscience. There is something wrong with our leadership. I am not asking the candidates to commit political suicide. I am asking the candidates to be real leaders."

Summers says: amen to that, Mayor. I couldn't have said it better. And I intend to lead on this issue.

Lake Barrington gun plant targeted by March, August 28, 2007
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=26722

“Barrington Hills Village President (and 16th district Democratic congressional candidate) Robert Abboud is a proud gun owner but supports banning assault weapons.”

Summers says: Well, okay: banning assault weapons is a good start. Thank you for that, Mr. Abboud. Now – tell voters more about the “proud gun owner” part.